WalkSydney

Did you know that between 1/8th of trips in Western Sydney, and 1/4 of trips in Eastern Sydney are walked? (NSW Household Travel Survey, Six Cities, 2022/3).

Yet the Federal government spends only 1/800th of its transport dollars on walking, scooting and cycling. NSW is marginally better, spending 1/25th of transport dollars on these in the last two years – but this is still dwarfed by spending on roads, with rubbery schemes like the Pinch Point program, and case-less projects like the Elizabeth Drive duplication (a duplication of the billion dollar M12 as much as the existing road), each alone dwarfing all spend on buses, bikes, wheelchairs and walkers. In fact, NSW will spend more on half a dozen motorways in this term, than on all other kinds of transport combined, except Metro.

Spending money on walking is not just about fair funding for walkers.

In terms of climate change, Europe’s modelled Net Zero 2040 pathway ‘DT-2040‘ assigns 32% of carbon reduction to avoid-shift (that is, avoided trips such as in mixed use – shops, work and schools near homes – or shifted travel modes to a zero carbon mode like walking, scooting and cycling, or a low carbon mode like eScooters or public transport).

The remaining two-thirds ‘improves’ car and trucks but keeps them on the road – 43% was due to technology (fuel efficiency, hybrid or BEV) and the remaining 25% by using synthetic fuels and banning internal combustion engines.

Now walking is clearly the cheapest and lowest carbon form of travel, with substantial decarbonisation benefits even for drivers. Even in the electrification market, it is micromobility, and not EVs, that has had the lions share of growth in Europe since COVID.

But it’s not even just about climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Building walkable neighbourhoods with local amenities within walking distance, good crossings and riding paths for longer distance cycling and scooting means people who don’t want to drive don’t get in the way of those that do. In economic terms, using ‘human powered’ transport even has a decongestion benefit for motorists – one that’s recognised by Treasury in business cases. In fact the decongestion benefit is persistent, unlike building roads, which typically have a 3 or 5 year decay period – in other words, road widening is expected to do nothing for congestion in the medium term.

…and this doesn’t even touch on the benefits to physical and mental health, or the costs to society (walkers and non-walkers alike) avoid from less heart disease, loneliness and depression and longer life-years.

So, when the Federal Government called for pre-budget submissions this year, WalkSydney argued for three big moves:

1. Introduce Road Funding Principles modelled on the Welsh Government approach which includes a pause on all new road building and limits future road investment to:

“schemes that modify the form of a road […] for these four purposes:
‒ Shifting trips to sustainable transport to reduce carbon emissions;
‒ Reducing casualties where they are high, through small scale changes;
‒ Adapting roads to the impacts of climate change;
‒ Supporting prosperity by providing access to development sites that will achieve high sustainable transport mode share”.

2. Ring-fencing 20% Spending for walking, riding and scooting for road safety funding (as is currently reportedly the case) and extending this to all other road-related funding by the state government, including funding housing acceleration where appropriate. 

For example, consistent with the Federal Government’s own sector pathways plan, there is a need for mode shift to active transport, delivered through the National Urban Policy, in order to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled and thus emissions.  Therefore funding of new precincts should ensure these precincts maximise transport alternatives, such as by requiring as a condition of funding precincts:

• Streets that are walkable by design (for example: frequent crossings, 30km/h).
• Frequent public transport to all new homes, and
• Supermarkets, parks and schools within walking distance of all new homes.

and lastly

3. Remove tax incentives for SUVs. Companies that buy fleet vehicles can claim them as business expenses, irrespective of the vehicle type – every car or truck is a business expense. However for sole traders (about 12% of the workforce), the tax deduction for motor vehicle expenses requires them to record the amount of business use of their car, and pro-rata their deduction accordingly. Sole traders can avoid this hassle and use the same ‘actual cost’ method as companies – if they have ‘other vehicles’ (that is, not cars). An SUV over one tonne is an ‘other vehicle’. 

This means that if you’re a sole trader – a plumber, electrician, consultant or even a suburban accountant, there is a tax incentive to purchase an SUV (over 1 tonne), in order to avoid accounting for the proportion of business use.  This is far from the only incentive of course – for example there are also instant asset write offs (depreciation) available for purchases in the range of $20,000 to $150,000 (depending on turnover) and has been since 2020 when the threshold lifted from $30,000. Naturally, Australia’s most popular SUVs are priced from $25,000 to $70,000 – well within the threshold. The popularity of SUVs has unsurprisingly soared, in large part due to these factors, to such a point that we are increasing the standards for car parking to accommodate them. We should instead be driving down SUV purchase and use, as they are doing in Paris, since SUVs double a pedestrian’s risk of death as well as contributing to road wear and increased emissions.

Want to do get involved in advocacy for better walking?

Volunteer for Better Streets this election

WalkSydney is a member of the Better Streets coalition